Sage said:

[snip, snip, snippity SNIP--Methinks your roommate should ask a psychologist what "projection" means.]

Aaron needs to take responsiblity for his own actions. He just doesn't f ing get it, and until he does, he shouldn't count on having his account unlocked.

As for the Privacy Policy--it deals with "personally identifiable information." That's stuff like your birthdate, Social Security number, home address, email address, etc. Ian didn't disclose any of that. Moreover, the Privacy Policy provides that we may disclose such information about someone who has violated the User Agreement, although I still have no intention of doing so.

Before u deactivate or delete an account, y dont u ask the other Members? Let the Members vote. If most ppl want to get rid of a person then delete the account...If not..well..then they can stay.

Janeau said:

With the amount of work the moderators put into this site, it should really be their call.

OMG! Aaron got deleted?

One less reason for me to post here. Sorry, Matt and Ian, I know you mean well and are actually just doing your job, but you are getting rid of some of the strongest personalities around here, and that is bound to make the site less interesting over time. Anxiety and Aaron were two interesting posters who didn't mince words, and I'm not happy they are gone. I think it's a loss.

Sometimes when you're trying to create something new and improved, you gotta chase off the old dogs so you can train the new dogs better.

And when the new dogs see how hard the old dogs got whupped off the farm, the new pups behave even better.

It's kind of sad, but sometimes it just beez that way.

Janeau said:

"The .org has spoken. It's time for you to go."

/me extinguishes torch



Seriously, it's an interesting idea, but I doubt we'd adopt such a procedure, for several reasons:

1) In many cases. the prince.org community doesn't have access to certain "evidence" against the alleged wrongdoer, such as posts/threads that were deleted or private orgNotes.

2) I fear that vote fraud would be a problem. Even if we somehow set up a "ballot box" system that allowed only one vote per username, there's really nothing to stop people from opening multiple accounts.

3) I think it would lead to unnecessary drama... we'd have stuff like people "campaigning" for votes to get certain people kicked off the .org.

IMHO account lockings/deletions are best handled by executive decision. But in any event, it really doesn't happen that often... it's just been a big issue lately because Aaron is a "high-profile" member who's rather controversial.

Aerogram said:

I don't know much about Anxiety's case, but I do know that he left of his own accord. As for Aaron... strong and/or interesting personalities are fine, and help make the .org what it is. But he knew the rules, chose to break them, and refused to accept that the rules apply to him, just as they do to everyone else.

I'm hoping that, in the future, the members of prince.org will help police the community by applying "peer pressure" on people whose conduct goes too far. In some cases, such as Aaron, I think it would be more effective than action by the moderators, and it might help avoid the need to lock/delete accounts.

matt said:

I have 2 agree...Voting would lead 2 unnecessary drama...

Janeau said:

Aaron says that he doesn't think that's a viable solution to address certain moderation issues.

He does think that perhaps there should be some kind of election/voting process for moderators though. He understands that matt has been a moderator on this site for a long time. But if he's not up to doing the task and cannot harbor any criticism of him (check the Ian: the new moderator thread, among others) then perhaps it's time to let go. The site ran pretty smoothly while he was away on that month-long vacation we heard about...

After all, matt is the guy that said in the chatroom the other night (Thursday), when people were raising a stink about Aaron's account being deleted that if it was up to him, everyone's account would be deleted, including his own, and the site would shut down.

Does that sound like someone who's interested in doing his job as moderator? Or the kind of person who should be a moderator in the first place?
[This message was edited Sat Sep 14 10:17:18 PDT 2002 by Sage]

matt said:

not unlike the Hitler youth, eh?

Sage said:

hey

whatever your feelings regarding a perticular moderator,

making comparisons to hitler or nazis is kind of extreme and IMO diminishes the true horror of that period in history

perspective is in order sage
this is merely a message board after all

matt said:

Aaron's trademark was irreverence. I always expected him to get down and dirty. Sometimes it went too far, but I think he's definitely an asset for the Org in real terms, because whatever the rules are, people do enjoy his posts and his approach. I'm just a bit concerned that this place is turning to vanilla... Like I said to Ian, you can't really imagine someone like Bart carrying on like he did in the old days.. His account would be deleted, and I think that would be a darn shame, no matter how bad he was at times. He gave this place some character and edge for a while, just Kellyanne did.

This is just a preference of mine. It's your prerogative... I can always post on AMP.
[This message was edited Sat Sep 14 12:29:38 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

salts nottin without da peppa yo

Aerogram said:

me learning lots about how you like your org from this post..hehehehehe

for me, character.. edge...arent words that I associate with this place...i enjoy visiting the site to get the latest information on prince, other artist, to pick the brains of likeminded people on various topics...i *do not* come here to be entertained by reading other peoples rants, flame wars, silly dedication threads or personal attacks sprinkled within serious discussions...

and im assumming that enough people had the same complaints...enough that forced ben and co to change the direction of the site..i think we all tend to have narrow perceptions of approval based on responce within forums..what we forget is that there are many many other people who visit this site who never post... i have a couple net friends who visit here and they *never* post things because they look at things like the aaron/oceana flame war and they see it as a disturbtion of dialog. They would rather not get engaged in topics when a thread can be hijacked so easily...

there are still silly threads along with the serious...people now seem to stick on-topic..theres still fun stuff around...what was up with that masturbation thread? i loved it!!! but, in the music-non prince section you can find a nice debate over the madonnas artistic growth (i finally got davideye to realize maddy is a hack!! wup wup!! j/k)...its all still here..

...even with the moderation this is the same ole org...

as far as aaron goes, hopefully he and the moderators are taking their personal issues backstage...I hope he come back...but, i hope he consideres that people like me are more interested in what his views are, not his posting style...thats what annoyed be about people like bart and kellyanne..sometimes they had some interesting points to make, or new information to bring to us, but it was with too much drama and attitude...your not creating a charactor for showbiz so drop the vaudeville shtick ...

and thats why i seek out posts from the likes of yourself and icenine, you share your opinion in polite and uncondescending fashions...actually, for the most part, aaron is like that too...its just when the flame wars start.....then watch out big Bertha cause here comes the storm....


slap that edit!!
[This message was edited Sat Sep 14 14:48:25 PDT 2002 by SkletonKee]

Dwaynes world

is


Excellent

Janeau said:

O.K here's my vote - I vote to let the moderators decide who stay & who goes.

I find this whole post hilarious.
I've been on prince.org since it started & I have no idea who Aaron is.

HO-asses!

Sage said:

I have no problem with criticism per se. But I don't take very kindly to smear campaigns, vendettas, and lies.



Just to set the record straight... nobody was "raising a stink." Some people didn't know what was going on, and they asked me about it. The comment about banning everyone and shutting down the site was a joke, and you damn well know it.

I'm not sure why you're directing your anger solely at me. The decision to ban Aaron was made by Ben, with support from me and Ian. Of course, had Aaron behaved himself, he'd still be here today. But Ben gave him a final warning, and Aaron chose to ignore it, so it's hardly surprising that Aaron is now suffering the consequences.

I can't help noticing that both you and your roommate (Aaron) whine in a similar manner... misrepresenting the facts, rejecting the idea that people are responsible for their own actions, and obsessing over certain people (e.g., me). What's that old saying? "Birds of a feather flock together"?

shausler said:


http://www.wikipedia.org/...%2527s_law

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over....

Sounds good to me. I don't think there's anything left to discuss about this. It's a done deal--let's move on.